The worst part is that I can totally see Game Freak doing this.
At least Mega Talonflame would probably get an Attack boost.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Pokémon Presents - Pokémon Day 2025 - Pokemon ZA Info & Pokemon Champions Announced
- Thread starter DHR-107
- Start date
At least Mega Talonflame would probably get an Attack boost.
Well as usual, a 30 second trailer with what is seemingly a new OST for the game.
Take with it as you will, folks.
The trailer doesn’t really show or tell us anything new, other than I am largely irritated by the parkour use of the Rotom phone replacing the ride Pokemon. This does sort of confirm one thing to me - the two Legends series games are undoubtedly sandbox prototypes for things seen later in the Pokemon series.
PLA - sandbox for ride Pokemon of various types. SV then takes this and establishes a single ride Pokemon type, virtually everything except SV’s flying is developed in PLA. This coincides with development of the open world style, including the landscapes. SV develops this further.
PLZA - sandbox for city scapes in Pokemon. I am beyond convinced that the reason we have these two games the way round they are, is because a future Pokemon game is going to have both of these developed gameplays. It’s also a sandbox for a new developed real time battle system. I am fairly convinced that Gen 10 is going to have this, because of the PLA to SV connections, and how PLZA takes from PLA’s overall development, even if it is dispensing for the purposes of this title, the two main options which were open world, and ride Pokemon.
I am still excited for ZA but I am tempering my expectations - I am expecting the third legends title to incorporate all of this. I am still convinced it’s a trilogy!
PLA - sandbox for ride Pokemon of various types. SV then takes this and establishes a single ride Pokemon type, virtually everything except SV’s flying is developed in PLA. This coincides with development of the open world style, including the landscapes. SV develops this further.
PLZA - sandbox for city scapes in Pokemon. I am beyond convinced that the reason we have these two games the way round they are, is because a future Pokemon game is going to have both of these developed gameplays. It’s also a sandbox for a new developed real time battle system. I am fairly convinced that Gen 10 is going to have this, because of the PLA to SV connections, and how PLZA takes from PLA’s overall development, even if it is dispensing for the purposes of this title, the two main options which were open world, and ride Pokemon.
I am still excited for ZA but I am tempering my expectations - I am expecting the third legends title to incorporate all of this. I am still convinced it’s a trilogy!
Gen 10's not gonna change the battle system. People were saying this when PLA's battle system was first revealed and SV kept exactly none of it.
Do you have insider info then?
Nothing’s assured in the Pokemon series until it happens.
SV didn’t take PLA’s battle system but it did take its open world concept and ride Pokemon development. The battle system wasn’t sufficiently different to incorporate it into the main series games. It was clearly putting in the groundwork for PLZAs battle system, however, which is obviously different enough and a development further of that battle system.
Enough of PLA was incorporated into SV to show that Game Freak are building up to change.
Calmly await events, but I’m not going to rule out that the battle system changes for Gen 10. It’s exactly the right time to do it - particularly if PLZA’s battle system works well and is welcomed by fans.
Let me be honest sir, thinking Pokemon will change anything about their combat system after keeping it mostly the same for 20 years is beyond delusional :P
The pokemon battle system is a typical case of "if it aint broken, don't fix it"
You saw how much backlash there was to PLA changes to battle system from a decent size of the community. The amount of people who wish it had the "regular" one is much bigger than the ones that enjoyed the new one, regardless of if it's better or worse, simply due to resistance to change.
Minor updates or mechanic refreshes for balance reasons? Sure, they happen every generation.
Actual mechanical changes? Not happening, not in this universe.
The pokemon battle system is a typical case of "if it aint broken, don't fix it"
You saw how much backlash there was to PLA changes to battle system from a decent size of the community. The amount of people who wish it had the "regular" one is much bigger than the ones that enjoyed the new one, regardless of if it's better or worse, simply due to resistance to change.
Minor updates or mechanic refreshes for balance reasons? Sure, they happen every generation.
Actual mechanical changes? Not happening, not in this universe.
I've played my fair share of RPGs on both ends of the "pure traditional turn-based" to "real time" scale and various ones in between, and by all accounts it sounded like PLA's battle system legitimately sucked on its own merits lol.
The biggest change to the core battle system I can see Game Freak ever committing to is giving us another Doubles-only game. Maybe Triples if they're feeling spicy.
I’m going to preface this by saying that I think getting personal in a discussion on what is meant to be a friendly discussion on Pokemon is a trite bit ridiculous. I’m allowed to hold a differing opinion, you’re welcome to disagree with me.
You say that, but we’re seeing Pokemon in flux here: changes have happened, are happening, will continue to happen. The point I am making, and continue to make, is don’t be surprised if you see Gen 10 make more radical changes based off the development of the Legends series games (because we’ve already seen it happen as outlined above).
TPC, Game Freak and Nintendo are more concerned with making the games accessible and appealing to broader consumerism. The changing of the battle mechanics is one area they are - obviously - experimenting with, particularly when you go and look at the Tera Leak data and realise PLA was originally closer in concept to what PLZA is (and PLZA is a further development).
In short, whatever you think is “sizeable backlash” about the PLA battle system, it paled in comparison to the legitimate concerns of the frame rate and graphics of SV. In short, not a huge concern for those developing the game.
All I’m saying is, don’t be surprised to see some changes, radical or otherwise, to the battle system. The direction of travel of the development of the main series of Pokemon games, including the Legends titles which are obviously contributing to the overall development and knowledge, may see some changes made next generation.
SV’s battles incorporated the “battle on the exact spot” mechanics of PLA, which was a step up from SW/SH (which was closer to Alola’s setup really). PLZA is going further, Gen 10 absolutely will incorporate some learning from PLZA. Whether that’s making it fully real time or not is another matter, but I am expecting some minimum improvements and I think moving the trainer is going to be incorporated as per the two Legends titles.
You say that, but we’re seeing Pokemon in flux here: changes have happened, are happening, will continue to happen. The point I am making, and continue to make, is don’t be surprised if you see Gen 10 make more radical changes based off the development of the Legends series games (because we’ve already seen it happen as outlined above).
TPC, Game Freak and Nintendo are more concerned with making the games accessible and appealing to broader consumerism. The changing of the battle mechanics is one area they are - obviously - experimenting with, particularly when you go and look at the Tera Leak data and realise PLA was originally closer in concept to what PLZA is (and PLZA is a further development).
In short, whatever you think is “sizeable backlash” about the PLA battle system, it paled in comparison to the legitimate concerns of the frame rate and graphics of SV. In short, not a huge concern for those developing the game.
All I’m saying is, don’t be surprised to see some changes, radical or otherwise, to the battle system. The direction of travel of the development of the main series of Pokemon games, including the Legends titles which are obviously contributing to the overall development and knowledge, may see some changes made next generation.
SV’s battles incorporated the “battle on the exact spot” mechanics of PLA, which was a step up from SW/SH (which was closer to Alola’s setup really). PLZA is going further, Gen 10 absolutely will incorporate some learning from PLZA. Whether that’s making it fully real time or not is another matter, but I am expecting some minimum improvements and I think moving the trainer is going to be incorporated as per the two Legends titles.
Have you played it? I did over 200 hours on PLA. Battle system was perfectly fine, not a huge step up from the traditional Pokemon setup. I think we could have taken or left the “styles” - they allowed for some spamming and one turn kills but they weren’t necessary and it’s notable that’s what PLZA has cut in favour of a more real time battle system.
Doubles only as per Colosseum and XD Gale of Darkness is, I think, unlikely - but then when have GF ever really followed patterns? Who knows! Maybe they will.
I’m looking at this from an engineering perspective of what they’re doing as an overall. I don’t think they’re going to entirely get rid of turn based battles or selecting moves period. There’s an obvious overall development from SW/SH through to PLZA via PLA and SV and I think ignoring the subtle and not so subtle changes in different aspects of it is probably wrong.
If GF were going to change it up, the 30th anniversary feels like a good jumping off point.
I am instead looking at this from the correct perspective: cold hard cash.
There are 2 main type of people who buy pokemon games: people who buy it because it's Pokemon (mainly children, but also people like me who just enjoy the comfy monster collector vibes), and people who buy it for competitive Pokemon shenenigans.
The first part can't care less of the combat system. So there's no reason to change it for them. It has to be easy to understand, which is something they've worked on in last years by adding plenty of graphic indicator to help non veterans, and it succeeds at this already.
The second part plays it *because* of this combat system: fundamental changes would risk alienating that part of the buyerbase you already have guaranteed, taking a massive risk for no guaranteed financial gain.
Moreso, they've already done plenty of moves to facilitate VGC access, both playerwise (the massive QoL and simplification of training for competitive scenarios) and spectator wise (making the game look a lot more scenic, well, outside of completely failing to have a workable spectator mode in gen 9)
Note: gen 9 games actually have a spectator mode, it was used in some tournaments, simply it had a lot of bugs (including "spoiling" if % chances happened before the animation even played) that apparently they couldn't or didn't have time to fix so got abandoned.
Even the decision of keeping things like critical hits and plenty of RNG effects in the game is mainly a spectator trick: spectators *love* the OOOOOO moments of turnaround crits and generally will go full ResidentSleeper any time a match is calculated and predictable (even if the players are actually playing their mind out in positioning maneuvers. Yes we've seen it plenty of times this year on official streams).
Thus, on pure, raw, objective level: why would they take a massive financial risk changing something that is liked *as is*, taking a gamble of alienating the "guaranteed" buyerbase over a ipotetical new one that you can't guarantee in any way?
As for LA: I played the game, plenty of it. The combat system of LA *in a vacuum* works because it's a combat system made for a pure single player game that doesn't need any sort of real balance, all it needs is letting you be able to not corner yourself nor force you to grind. The game wanted to be focused on pokemon catching, not on pokemon training, so they made a combat system that worked for it, changing how stats are calculated and how moves work. Citing LA (or now, ZA) changes as "they've done it once" is about as valid as saying "Pokemon Mystery Dungeon has a different battle system so we can expect them to import it in the mainline games".
This isn't a random indie company we're talking about. It's Nintendo, and one of their biggest selling IPs. They're not taking dumb risks by changing what works for their biggest recurring sellers that need to be exposed to as much buyerbase as possible to open up the floodgates for the next 3 years of merchandise. They haven't for 30 years, and they won't now.
May I need to remind you of something though? The potential balacing issues to the point of making matches too predictable despite RNG, or that too many RNG involved to the point of effectively gambling the competitors’ money away? Don’t get me started of calling something completely delusional as it comes off as downright rude.
Okay, RNG first since you mentioned those. Aspects like Crits, accuracy and all are fine and done to prevent a match from being predictable, but there are aspects that are not so fine such as Freeze, Sleep, Flinch (other than Fake Out), other factors that either strip the other player’s turn away of one or two of their Pokémon, or are even more impactful than a single crit or a miss.
That’s not getting into new moves that would be as obnoxious as Sneasel’s Dire Claw in terms of abusing luck-based aspects as a mechanic to the point of being both inconsistent yet also put the opponent in an unfair position by inducing random statuses or super-impactful statuses that cannot be built around other than hope it won’t happen. Especially bad if it involve a spread move…
Another core issue I want to address is that “spectacle creep” can risk of killing the pace. The first four times (from Megas to Terastalization), it went fine, though Z-Moves slows thing down. However, if we reached a case where, say, a mechanic that takes a whole thirty second just for a transformation, and cause subsequent boosted moves to take ten seconds, then the competitive players end up losing interest due to the potential snail pace, especially if the official time limit are not adjusted to take that into account.
I mentioned about balancing issues earlier, “atrociously unfun to fight against or too little consistent counters” kind of issue. Power creep regarding Restricted Pokémon is one thing, having power creep so severe regarding new ones that they may as well be Restricted in term of power level and causes battle to make breakneck pace (i.e. only three rounds at least and six at most) is where things get ugly. SV was awful regarding Smogons OU (partly due to council acting too slow), it was a near issue in VGC but can end up worse, and who knows how stupid it can be in the next games.
That is not getting into the amount one have to pay just to be competitively viable, by locking certain Pokémon behind transfer for it to be available at all, a few (but not all) DLC Legendary mons being much more powerful than previous ones, HOME Subscription without external help, cost of traveling for official VGC tourneys, sign-up costs, etc.
“Hard cold cash” may be an excuse, but it is not a valid excuse to dismiss the issues above as it can end up being so focused at the expense of non-sponsors, be it competitive players deciding the game’s too unfairly difficult to keep up, the spectators findind the game too predictable despite the RNG aspect (or finding RNG starting to become too game-deciding), or casual players finding the entry to competitive too intimidating despite the QoL additions.
I am well aware, and it's intentionally rude sounding because I am purposely trying to be rude and dismissive of that opinion.
Because I do in fact think that anyone thinking that GF will change the mainline series combat system is really asking for something impossible and should stop doing that.
To be clear, I never said it's a *good* decision. I said it's a decision with a certain foundation behind it, that is very clear.
Yes, I do agree and mentioned every so often in other posts how the RNG has become a excessive problem. I have myself seen a few too many matches literally swung from a crit or a stat drop which costed actual money to the player who was on the receiving end of bad RNG.
However, that doesn't change my point: the viewers enjoy the spectacle much more than the calculated gameplay. The result is that the decision to keep these questionable elements in the game is being actively made. We know that when they think a certain type of RNG is *too toxic* they will nerf it (see Moody nerfs for example), so if they think that it became too swingy, they will likely act on how much the RNG impacts it, but they will NOT remove it since it's part of the system and something people are accustomed to.
The supermechanics themselves, yes, they're there mainly for spectable and keep a high octane meta: they are clearly against stally gameplay, they've nerfed almost every defensive strategy in existance to prevent matches going to timer... they even actually INTRODUCED the timer in first place to force you to play aggressively or lose.
They do seem to have aknowledged that Dynamax was too much, since Terastal compared to the predecessor is a lot more tame and limited in how much "who uses it better wins". If they still think that Terastal was too strong/swingy, the next supermechanic will be less powerful, but you should expect some kind of supermechanic to be in the next mainline.
This is just capitalism I'm afraid. I *will* disagree however that locking mons behind DLC is weird or even new.
Before Gen 8, the mons would instead be locked behind ... buying a new game. The DLCs are nothing but the modern version of the new game.
And I have to remind you, they're *less expensive* than an entire game.
IF we were still on "2nd version mode" like before, in order to play this year's VGC you'd have needed to own Pokemon UltraScarlet and Pokemon MegaViolet, a expense of another 60 (soon to be 70 btw) on top of the Scarlet/Violet you already bought the year before. DLCs only amount to those 30 bucks, which is half the price of the game.
Also Home is not paid, Home is free. You don't have to pay to move pokemon between games. You only need to pay if you want to hold more than 30 pokemon on it.
Locking some mons behind Legends was definitely annoying and way more scummy, but again, you're tecnically not forced to own them as you can trade for them. And there is the whole thing of Champions coming up soon which could make "own all games" obsolete anyway. Or it could not, hard to say.
Regardless, my original point still stands: the logical choice from raw capitalist stand point is to not alter the core mechanics of the game. You can obviously mess with the balance and refine / add smaller feature (and they do often, both add or remove bits as well as introduce new micro mechanics), but the core gameplay of how Pokemon battle works has been the same since gen 4 (tecnically since gen 1 if you don't count the special split as mechanical change). It has had things added to it (like held items, or new types, new moves and new volatile status conditions), but the concept of "Both player select a move, the pokemon move in a clearly determined order, and each move does what it does according to a type chart of effectivenesses and immunities that has mostly remained the same for last 20 years bar some minor changes in the generation that introduced a entire new type".
It would be *excessively risky* to change it. Expecially as people already like it as is.
Are you’re one of those types.
Any actual credentials in videogames? Or project management? Or just a persona with a keyboard on a forum?
I’ll remember to not engage with you next time: I like engaging in good faith debate and I don’t like to waste my time on people who don’t do the same.
I’m in a similar headspace to you, I think Pokemon has to change to keep the momentum going and to continue to appeal to casual players and new generations: the status quo is starting to look dated against other franchises and I do think Game Freak has the clout to realise they need to change.
Yes, they have to appeal to the hardcore and the career gamers too, but they (as they always have done) will adapt to the changes the franchise makes, and not the other way around.
I think the last two or three gens have shown that GF are actively listening to their wider fanbase and are reading the room on games development too. The successive iterative developments from Gen 7 up to Gen 9 show a company making changes and trying to adapt to improve the gameplay and sometimes streamline the experience.
In short, I agree with you and thanks for engaging positively.
Would you be surprised if i said yes, that I work in the industry? Not that you'd believe me, but I do work in economics (with banks and advertising) so I do surprising know a thing or two about how marketing works.
You can even find my real name and workplace if you care enough to search, it's easy since I use this nickname about everywhere.
Not that it looks like logic interests you anyway, you're free to hide behind nostalgia or whatever, but the harsh reality is that Pokemon is a business and business is methodical. Shareholders want guaranteed income, not fancy dreams of teenagers
And specifically:
No. Pokemon does NOT have to change. Changing is the worst move they can do, they already are basically kept afloat by the old playerbase as far as adults go. Risking to alienate the old buyers further is the opposite of optimal.
That said, you're free to click the ignore button, it's there for a reason, expecially if you cannot handle criticism backed by actual explanations and reasoning that I provided extensively. This is a forum where people exchange opinions, not a echo chamber where everyone has to agree with you.
A matter of fact is calling something delusional / cope is not constructive criticism, it’s simply destructive criticism.
You may have experiences that do back up what you said. You may have a good reason to be seriously doubtful about changes. You did some research of a developer’s insight or intention behind a mechanic or other things.
The real issue here is your tone and the way you addresses to the others. You can only be intentionally rude for so long before you comes off as insufferable to the others. Calling an unlikely change as delusional isn’t the right way to call out “unrealistic” expectations, all you need to do is just call it something far less insulting like unrealistic or unlikely. Or just provide clarifications in case of your reply towards me, and be consistent about it.
I originally want to give counterarguments against capitalism such as inflated budgets, increasing expectations from big corporations, and the fact that we never know if shareholders are really doing the job or are just as shady as many known CEOs (though I invite you to speak about it if you personally met them), but I rather not waste breath about a flawed, exploitable system since the thread here is about the upcoming games, first and foremost.
You have experiences, you may call yourself logical, you may not like arguing often with those whom you call their dream as disillusional, but do try be a bigger person and not bring the others down just because they expressed their dream or opinion.
Last edited:
I’m happy to agree to disagree with anyone, what I object to (rightly so) is being called “delusional” by a complete random on the internet with no credentials, no credibility, and nothing really to add other than only his (or her) own held beliefs.
Like, if you’d approached this in good faith I’d have been more likely to hear you out but at this point it’s just words from someone on the internet looking for a fight, and I haven’t got the time or energy or inclination for that - my time is precious and I come here to get away from overly aggressive argumentative people IRL, not have to deal with them on the subject of Pokémon. This is my escape, I object to it being made a worse experience by others.
So yes, the ignore button is going to be used and as far as I’m concerned that’s an end of it.
It’s just plain rude on top of that. We don’t know each other as far as I know, I certainly wouldn’t be calling someone on the street delusional for a first real interaction. It’s classic keyboard warrior stuff.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts on this.
Shall we get back to discussing the game please?
I for one am looking forward to the July presents in the hope of seeing something new.
I must have missed a juicy conversation or something
Possibly unpopular opinion in an attempt to reset the conversation, but I hope they still use Switch 1 game footage for any Legends ZA trailers in this July Presents. I think it would be stupid to suddenly upgrade the footage to the Switch 2 version when 90 plus percent of people won’t have a Switch 2 at the time ZA launches (in terms of overall console sales, I mean, not necessarily among Pokémon fans) and people might think they got conned if they see Switch 2 footage and end up buying the Switch 1 version. Alternatively they could show some of each and try and do some kind of side-by-side to try and get people sold on the $70 price tag. 
I would have agreed a few months ago, but with Champions becoming a thing, I do think there's a real possibility that Game Freak starts to try out new battle systems in their mainline games while having Champions be the place for traditional competitive Pokemon battles.
Pokemon as a whole may be a giant media conglomeration beholden to the whims of shareholders, but Game Freak themselves do not seem to be. If they were, they wouldn't consistently set their ambitions too high to properly execute. That is the opposite of playing it safe.
I would imagine Legends is their experimental subseries they get away with having because their standard series is...well..the standard. Champions - a spin off title that is probably going to be a different type of mess and that we barely know anything about - will likely not be their primary standard battle game they're supporting so that every single game they make can follow a different style of battling.
Which is all to say Gen 10 will probably be our usual turn based fun while Gen 10's Legends title (or Legends-esque) will change up its formula again because they want to do something different.
Which is all to say Gen 10 will probably be our usual turn based fun while Gen 10's Legends title (or Legends-esque) will change up its formula again because they want to do something different.
An excellent point, well made.
Legends absolutely is their experimental series. My thing is, we can see how the experimental parts of it keep getting added to the main series.
I was frankly surprised when things like the crafting from items wasn’t brought forward to SV in any meaningful way, but they undoubtedly did bring forward all of the ride Pokemon experience almost verbatim, the only one which was a question mark was the true flying, which was added during the DLC.
Maybe Gen 10 will just be more of the same, but I just have this feeling about how the Legends series of games ties in the main series. I really do think there’s more than just a possibility of some changing up for the main series, even if it comes down to just a change in the presentation of the tun based system.
Champions, which a couple of you have alluded to, may yet turn out to be the “great equaliser” - as in, it becomes the VGC standard and everything else plugs into it - as HOME works for collecting.
Overall, feeling a lot happier and more confident about spending money on legends ZA later in the year.
If Mega Talonflame got enough of a Speed boost would it really need Gale Wings?
Poekmon with highest Speed is:
200: Regieleki
180: Deoxys-Speed
150: Electrode (Normal & Hisuiuan), Deoxys (Normal & Attack), Calyrex-Shadow Rider
Talonflame's Speed is 126. To be the third fastest Pokemon it just needs 25 more points, second fastest 55, and fastest 75. Now I doubt they'll aim for it to be second fastest as that feels like a waste of points, but at least 25 points is not only reasonable but I would expect it. My ideal increase: 78/81/71/74/69/126//499 > x/+30/+10/x/+10/+30//+100 > 78/111/81/74/79/156//599 (I only did increases, but does Talonflame really need its Special Attack?). At this point I'd forget Gale Wings and give it something to make it more potent like Adaptability or go all in with Reckless (or Moxie; I guess Mold Breaker or Stalwart could also be possible).
Experimenting with larger & more interactive cities? Sure, to an extent; that is a feature Pokemon has slacked on when it jumped to 3D. Though of course the reason why is that to make a genuine large feeling city that has plenty of things to do doesn't really mesh with the scope of the Pokemon games. It's why recent games have focused on having a singular major city or two while keeping every place else, even if its called a "city", relatively small in comparison. Having just one/two major cities lets them put in all the features & trappings a player would want from that location but, since Pokemon game spans entire regions and through multiple settlements, means all the other smaller cities and towns don't feel bogged down and can just have a handful of notable spots.
Real-time battling system? Now, unlike everyone else I'm not going to shoot down the idea of some kind of real-time system or it adding innovations to the battling system. BUT I don't think we'll see real-time battles like we're going to do in Legends Z-A in the core series. Many would note that Legends Arceus battling system didn't bring any new innovations to the core series battling system, but I don't think it was supposed to. Rather, Legends Arceus battling system was an experiment to see if they could tweak the core series battling system to make a more unique one; could they give side games more unique battling systems (and thus a more unique experience to differ from the core series)? And for the most part, while there were pros and cons, the Legends Arceus battle system did show a tweaked battling system can work in side games. Now, as for Legends Z-A, right away we're seeing it benefit from that Legends Arceus experiment by letting them do a real-time one (that's more complex than the one they had in PokePark before anyone brings that up). And while I doubt the core series will ever go real-time battling I can see two other things that can come from it: 1. Real-time side activities (think performing in a Pokemon Contest, competing in the Pokeathlon, or dancing in a Pokemon Musical) and 2. Adding in some quick-time events to battles (nothing that would be required, but maybe Moves will have a prompt for certain buttons or direction on the direction stick/dpad that'll let you do extra damage, improve accuracy, better chance of activating a secondary effect, or block damage; Oh, and yes, it will be turned off for PvP).
But hey, if your turn out right you can gloat about it to all the deniers.
If they ever remember Pokemon Colosseum maybe.
~You're a mean one, Mr. Worldie,~
~You really are a heel!~
~You're as cuddly as a Cacturne,~
~You're as charming as an Eelektross, Mr. Worldie.~
~Given the choice between those two and you,~
~I'd take the Cacturne and Eelektross!~
~(Sassy trumpet solo)~
Jokes aside, nothing Worldie said is wrong nor is "in bad faith". Money is a major factor in deciding things, and if changing something drastically such as going from a turn-based battle system to a real-time may turn off longtime fans who may stop buying the games cause of it, that's really something GF and Nintendo (and any company really) would want to ignore. And a lot of that is due to the nature of what the Pokemon series is. Another long time RPG series like Final Fantasy can go from turn-based to real-time (and everything in-between) because each and every entry of the Final Fantasy games are meant to stand on their own. But Pokemon encourages you to form a bond with the Pokemon you catch & train and then let you transfer those Pokemon up to the next gen games (or nowadays to a cloud storage system). And because of that connectivity it does sort of force them to keep the battling mechanics skeleton the same and find innovation on what they can add on top of it. Cushy position for a developer and company, but a very restrictive limitation to a creator. WHICH could be why GF has expanded the "Main Series" to include games like "Legends" and "Let's Go", so they can do drastic experiments with the battling system all while not having to interfere with it too much in what is now considered the "Core" series.
This is why I went the direction of the possibility of adding onto the turn-based system quick-time events and how real-time movement could still be included for side games. That's both the "safest" thing they can do to keep the familiar system while bending as much as they can to innovate it. And who knows, maybe if the first round of quick-time events turn out to be popular they'll add more; making it a gradual changing & improving toward real-time than a sudden shift, while also keeping things open to other innovations they could throw in and see if it sticks.
Though, one last factor, let us not forget this is GF. As much as they like to make new mechanics they also easily throw them out when they think of something new they want to play with. Right now they're into real-time battles, but by next gen they feel like they done everything they could with it so set it aside for another genre like, I don't know, tactical strategy (hopefully done better than Conquest).
THAT ALL SAID, I think we all (that includes Worldie and S.A.C. Martin) can agree on this: There's no need to be jerks to one another. Playful bantering, sure. If you feel like someone is getting a bit too big headed, you can point it out. But I don't think we need to be completely dismissive on people's thoughts and opinions, especially for something like gameplay speculation and potential future implications.
That's pretty much what I imagine they'll do with any use of Switch 1 footage, show it as a comparison how much it looks better on Switch 2. I can even see it being a mandate from Nintendo themselves: Try to convince as many people as you can that it's worth buying a Switch 2. Of course the danger of this is that they may make people feel the Switch 1 version is inferior but that's the only version they can get thus they'll be having an inferior experience. So overall I think in the end they'll probably use Switch 2 footage for the most part, only bringing in Switch 1 as comparison but not try to downplay it but rather boost the Switch 2 version.
Legends: Experimental.
Champions: Competitive.
Core Series: Expected Pokemon RPG experience with gimmicks of the gen.
(Let's Go: Is this ever getting another game or was just a one-off?)
I mean, we have the TM Crafting, and that's pretty much the only items which we would need to craft in a modern society where getting more Poke Balls and Potions is just a quick trip to the Poke Mart.
Now, would it be neat if maybe we could craft better versions of items, notably Held items with alternate effects? Sure, though we need to keep in mind that honestly the player doesn't really need that much besides Poke Ball and healing potions (and I specified healing cause when was the last time you used an Ether? Heck, they may as well just toss all the individual status curing items as there's no reason not to just purchase Full Heals), and since Pokemon can only hold one item there's always just a few select items most Pokemon would want (and you can only have 6 Pokemon on a party). Nowadays I can see GF asking the question "will the player honestly use this" whenever they introduce a new item, and if there's any doubt it's chucked into the bin.
LA's item crafting if very much steered toward a more "survival with limited supplies" game, so much more fitting in spin offs. Maybe they can have a side game where the player gets stranded on an island trope, though that might be too close to Pal World (and I guess the original LA was also like that except it was stranded in the past).
Eh, afaik it wasnt even SV crashing, the few times they had issues it was net issues unrelated to the actual games.
Besides, very likely they want Champions to happen to expose more people to VGC. Assuming it'll be either F2P or very low cost, that's a lot more people getting exposed to the game, and thus a lot more potential buyers for the games.
We don't know how it will work yet obviously, but a safe bet would be that it'll allow to use some premade stuff (like QR or premade teams like in Stadium), while also allowing you to use your own pokemon from Home or from the actual games.
That way you get to expose newcomers to the game and let them trying playing, and once they find out they enjoy it, spend to actually acquire the games to have their own mon.
Also I assume it makes it easier to fix bugs and do updates when you have a completely separated platform from the actual game that is much smaller in scope.
Also Pikachu315111 I think you need to work on your rhymes
